Star Wars or Matrix with GURPS rules

[Jediphile]

Man.. I missed a part of the action ..I feel left out .  When did you guys decide to post in a fury all of a sudden?!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Didn't you get the memo? :D

 

Sorry, saw "Batman Begins" recently "

 

Yeah, you can assign the action points whatever time interval you desire. But that still leaves the problem of knowing the exact time it would take for an average sword swing, an expert's sword swing, the average person's kick, a 5dan black belt's kick and so on...I suggest just making educated guesses and be done with it. The only other solution is by studying action/martial arts movies very very carefully.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd like to be thorough, but I guess you're right in the sense that it's the sort of thing that it's best to just do and then leave out there for everyone else to flame and criticize, so that you can get a better estimate that way

 

I like the roundless phase based system with Ag/Dex modifying action points. And since there are no rounds, these AP are not wasted but brought into the next phase (instead of being used for defense like in FO).. I like it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Lancer]

There is no carryover in a phase-based system with no rounds.

 

Without rounds, your agility or dex might lower the action point cost for certain things.  Say swinging a sword takes 10 APs.

 

Your Dex or Agi might give as much as a 1 through 5 modifier to APs, negative or positive.

 

So with a super high Agility, you can swing a sword in half the time.

 

For initiative, you roll a D10, and that says how far in the phase you start at.  A good init roll allows you to get a quick jump.

 

You have a Agi modifier of 3, so it takes a 7 for you to swing a sword.  You roll a 5 on initiative, so that's where you start.  You effectively start combat with 5 free action points removed from your first action.  You won't actually get to swing your sword into 2 phases or action points into battle.  And then you swing again 7 more phases in.

 

You're effectively swinging on 2, 9, 16, 23, so on and so forth.  But if you choose another action down the round, your next action could be sooner or later based on the number of action points for said action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great example, Ender

[Lancer]

The only other suggestion I had (for now )..In regards to the said combat system, you can have your "perception" stat modify your initiative roll much like it does in the Fallouts.

 

The amazing things you can do with teamwork!

[Jediphile]

The only other suggestion I had (for now )..In regards to the said combat system, you can have your "perception" stat modify your initiative roll much like it does in the Fallouts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I have no perception stat, though I do have a Precision stat, which modifies attacks. I planned to have Reaction (which is mental in nature) affect the initiative roll. Don't have the specifics on that one figured out yet, since I'd want Reaction to affect a Surprise roll, and rolling severely bad on that one should really cause a character to freeze up for potentially fatal seconds.

 

The amazing things you can do with teamwork!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Thanks for the responses, btw.

[Lancer]

Say swinging a sword takes 10 APs.

 

Your Dex or Agi might give as much as a 1 through 5 modifier to APs, negative or positive.

 

So with a super high Agility, you can swing a sword in half the time.

 

For initiative, you roll a D10, and that says how far in the phase you start at.  A good init roll allows you to get a quick jump.

 

You have a Agi modifier of 3, so it takes a 7 for you to swing a sword.  You roll a 5 on initiative, so that's where you start.  You effectively start combat with 5 free action points removed from your first action.  You won't actually get to swing your sword into 2 phases or action points into battle.  And then you swing again 7 more phases in.

 

You're effectively swinging on 2, 9, 16, 23, so on and so forth.  But if you choose another action down the round, your next action could be sooner or later based on the number of action points for said action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but there is only one more minor problem with this. Let's say a dagger stab costs 6AP. And because of above average agility, your +2 Agi modifier reduces that to 4AP.

 

You roll Init and get a 5 on a d10 (neglecting reaction/perception modifiers for now).. The way it stands you were supposed to dagger stab on "4" but your init roll doesn't let you act until "5"!

And you can't say ok just let him act on "9" (5+4) because in the above example the 7AP sword swinger would act on "7" - which is 2 AP before the character with the 4AP dagger.. Even though both rolled the same Init!

 

 

One way around it would be:

 

Phase character gets to act on = Init roll(w/modifiers) + AP of action

 

For example,

Ignoring modifiers for Init for now:

 

In Ender's example the character who rolled 5 on Init would actually start on 12 (5 for init + 7 for the sword strike) or 1.2 sec into the fight. If he keeps on swinging he'll attack in 7AP increments: 19, 26, 33...etc

 

In the new example, the dagger-stabbing character who also rolled 5 would actually start on 9 (5 for init +4AP for dagger stab) or .9 sec into the fight. If he keeps on using his dagger he would attack in 4AP increments: 13, 17, 21...etc

 

In this way, the dagger-stabber (who rolled the same init as the sword character) acts before the sword swinger which makes sense...

 

The action point (or phase) in which the characters act would change obviously according to the AP value of the new action.

[Lancer]

Yes. Thanks for the responses, btw.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No prob.. anytime.

 

Now, I just need to finish Mirage!

[Loof]

I just have two small comments to make:

 

Why do you need a initiative roll at all?

Why not just say that an action takes place when the ap cost number of phases have passed since the action was anounced. And just let any values that would have modified initiative modify action costs instead.

 

I definetly think skill level must modifie action costs. A master swordsman will swing his sword more effectivly then a fisherman no matter that the fisherman is a marvel of agility and quick wits. Of course this has a light problem in that the ap modifier will vary from action to action, but as long as you keep the skills relatively broad I think you should be able to precalculate these modifiers pretty easily. You could realy just add an extra column to all skills where you have the precalculated action modifier for any action based on that skill.

[Lancer]

I just have two small comments to make:

 

Why do you need a initiative roll at all?

Why not just say that an action takes place when the ap cost number of phases have passed since the action was anounced. And just let any values that would have modified initiative modify action costs instead.

 

You definitely don't need an initiative roll. But if you were going to have an initiative roll my post was meant to point out the one problem with Ender's otherwise good mechanic.

 

I must confess, however, to prefer initiative to be completely determined by your stats and action AP costs rather than through random rolling..

 

Fallout ,for instance, uses a "sequence" number which is completely determined by your perception stat.

 

If random initiative is not used, the formula would be modified to something like this:

 

Phase character gets to act on = Init roll(w/modifiers) Modifiers(reaction,perception...etc) + AP of action

[Lancer]

I definetly think skill level must modifie action costs. A master swordsman will swing his sword more effectivly then a fisherman no matter that the fisherman is a marvel of agility and quick wits. Of course this has a light problem in that the ap modifier will vary from action to action, but as long as you keep the skills relatively broad I think you should be able to precalculate these modifiers pretty easily. You could realy just add an extra column to all skills where you have the precalculated action modifier for any action based on that skill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I feel that Jediphile should make educated guesses based on how many AP an "average" action would take and since each AP corresponds to .1 seconds then the conversion is pretty easy.

 

a +5 to -5AP modifier (.5 to -.5sec) can be added to each of these "average" actions depending on how good (or bad) the character's relevant stat is.

[Loof]

Yeah thats a bit better.

 

Although I still prefer to not have any initiative at all I think. In other words a system where every character can start declaring actions as soon as he is aware of the situation (determined by GM), and actions take place efter the action cost number of phases have passed since they where declared (as oposed to a system where the action takes place at once but you have to wait untill actioncost phases have passed untill you can declare another action).

[Lancer]

Yeah thats a bit better.

 

Although I still prefer to not have any initiative at all I think. In other words a system where every character can start declaring actions as soon as he is aware of the situation (determined by GM), and actions take place efter the action cost number of phases have passed since they where declared (as oposed to a system where the action takes place at once but you have to wait untill actioncost phases have passed untill you can declare another action).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that character initiative should be determined mostly by the character's stats, and not the player as much. That said, if the GM wants to impose a penalty on the character's initiative due to poor player response time, that's certainly good too.

 

Phase character gets to act on = Modifiers(reaction,perception, player response time...etc) + AP of action

[Loof]

But who acts first is based on stats anyway since actioncost is based on the characters stats, why have an extra stat for reactiontime?

[Jediphile]

I just have two small comments to make:

 

Why do you need a initiative roll at all?

Why not just say that an action takes place when the ap cost number of phases have passed since the action was anounced. And just let any values that would have modified initiative modify action costs instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could, of course, but I like to think that reaction time actually determines who gets to act first. Besides, I like the duality of one person acting sooner than another because he reacts quicker, while the other performs the action itself faster because he's more dextrous.

 

Besides, even if you did the initiative roll with a d10, you'd still talk about only one second of delay at worst, and I'm actually considering using a d6 instead.

 

I'm also considering a "delay" of 1d3 or 1d4 points upon each completed action before you can take the next to reflect how react to the changing situations around them in combat. Naturally your Reaction attribute would modify that "delay" as well.

 

I definetly think skill level must modifie action costs. A master swordsman will swing his sword more effectivly then a fisherman no matter that the fisherman is a marvel of agility and quick wits. Of course this has a light problem in that the ap modifier will vary from action to action, but as long as you keep the skills relatively broad I think you should be able to precalculate these modifiers pretty easily. You could realy just add an extra column to all skills where you have the precalculated action modifier for any action based on that skill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No, I don't agree there, sorry. But I did plan on highly skilled warriors to move more easily from one attack to another, sometimes taking one action upon another without delay or even chaining two or more attacks together as we see it in some computer games. The end effect would be similar, though. Indeed, a great warrior would likely get more attacks that way. Such a warrior would also be deadly, because even if his enemy blocks one attack, the warrior instinctively moves to the perfect countermove without hesitation.

[Lancer]

But who acts first is based on stats anyway since actioncost is based on the characters stats, why have an extra stat for reactiontime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because the actual time it takes to react to a situation is independent of the time it takes to swing a sword, or a dagger, or run towards your enemy.

 

In real life terms, there is a real time lag for your brain to process the immediate danger at hand. Once that information is processed then your character can actually respond to the danger (via an attack).

 

If a character is surprised, the time to process the situation at hand is increased even further as you can't react quick enough to swing your sword in time due to the "shock" of the situation.

[Jediphile]

But who acts first is based on stats anyway since actioncost is based on the characters stats, why have an extra stat for reactiontime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because the actual time it takes to react to a situation is independent of the time it takes to swing a sword, or a dagger, or run towards your enemy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Precisely. In fact, I might want my d6 initiative die to be open-ended in the sense that if you roll a 6, then you roll again and add that number to the 6. If you roll 6 again, then you roll a third time, etc. What would be the equivalent of someone who totally freezes during combat (separate from actual surprise or shock).

 

In real life terms, there is a real time lag for your brain to process the immediate danger at hand. Once that information is processed then your character can actually respond to the danger (via an attack).

 

If a character is surprised, the time to process the situation at hand is increased even further as you can't react quick enough to swing your sword in time due to the "shock" of the situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. That's why I want a mentally-based Reaction stat that modifies intiative as well as a physically-based Dexterity stat that modifies the Action Point cost of your action. Of course, these stats would also be relevant in other situations.

[EnderAndrew]

With set APs, I think you NEED a random sequence number/initiative number to break the monotony.

[Jediphile]

With set APs, I think you NEED a random sequence number/initiative number to break the monotony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There's that too. Somehow I don't like the idea of a system where the guys with the high stats *always* go first no matter what on that basis. I mean, you really want a bit of uncertainty in there, even if the guys with high stats are still likely to go first, right? I know I do.

[Lancer]

But regardless, some people just react slightly quicker mentally in situations than others.

 

Even if you have a random initiative roll, I do like Jediphile's idea of having a mental-stat that modifies it.

[Jediphile]

Thanks. I guess I just want the idea that you have to mentally comprehend what is happening around you before you can take action to be somehow represented in the game, even if it is in a rather minor way.

[Lancer]

I can see melee in your system..

 

It'd be interesting to see just how your system of stances, improved stances, and counter-attacks work with magic and missile combat.

[Loof]

Ok I can see the point of using dice to break the randomness by having a initiative roll. Don't think I would use one If it was my system but I see the point.

 

About the argument that the skilled swordsman shouldn't get a bonus to the action itself and instead get a smaller delay between actions. Firstly the actual swing would be just as fast no matter your agility to, I would say the variable is the repositioning between swings, the flow of moves and the mental reaction time.

 

And I would to simplifie the system incorporate reactiontime into the actioncost of every action so a mentaly agile but average agility character might in practise be as fast as a physicaly fast but slowwitted character (this representing the fast witted character antisipating the the agile character). So its realy just two ways of doing the same thing.

The reason I would choose my system is that it has less components and would probably result in faster and easier gameplay.

 

In other words what I'm trying to say is why have two or three mechanics that basicaly determine the same thing when you can bake all the contributing factors into one mechanic and have a simpler system?

[Jediphile]

In other words what I'm trying to say is why have two or three mechanics that basicaly determine the same thing when you can bake all the contributing factors into one mechanic and have a simpler system?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personally, I don't think it's the same thing, but even if I did, I'd still like duality of the system. Besides, I wouldn't want only one stat to dictate how fast combat floats, since that's where I find AD&D combat to be too simplistic - it's always down to your Dexterity in D&D, and that makes Dexterity rather important in that system. And I've always felt that this in turn leads to other silly ideas in D&D placed there just for the sake of retaining game balance - there is no reason why Strength should influence your melee to-hit probability, for example.

 

So that's one reason. If you want to be really fast in combat, they you'll have to be agile enough to perform your actions with perfect grace and have fast reactions as well.

[Loof]

Yes I agree with what you said about D&D, but im not sugesting makeing a single attribute the speed modifier I'm sugesting that you use multiple statistics to for a derived speed modifier. You could even have several different speedmodifiers for different kinds of actions. So that each skill has a speedfactor for example:

 

Swordsmanship speed could be based on: agility(speed of movement) + wits(reactionspeed) + swordskill(economic movements)

 

Athletics speed could be: agility + wits + athletics...

 

And so on...

Just because you just have one value that modifies each action in the end doesnt mean that they have to be all the same or that there has to be any one single attribute that is allmiportant for speed.

 

My design philosophy has always been have many factors that can be precalculated so that you get variation but once the system is in play keep things as simple as possible.

 

 

Anyway whatever you deside on in the end I wish you luck and would very much like to see what you end up with if you ever get it finished